Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 21 August 23 >

August 22[edit]

Category:German Army (1935–1945) officers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. bibliomaniac15 17:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with one subcategory, and it unlikely that we will have a number of notable people who started and finished their career as a German Army officer between 1935 and 1939. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The category about Category:German military officers is entirely about the ethnic background of the officers, and does not connect itself to people who have actually served in the German Army. Dimadick (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is specifically about officers in the German Army in the Nazi period, during which the German Army was involved in many war crimes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but that is not the question. The question is whether we need two category layers, one for 1935-1945 and another one for 1939-1945. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This category is specifically about officers in the German Army in the Nazi period. We shouldn't produce a mishmash of Nazi and post-war military officers. Respect history means to separate eras. Category merge should never produce purée. --Just N. (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:William Ewart Gladstone[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The more common form of his name. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion should take place at Talk:William Ewart Gladstone. Opera hat (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Do a requested move on the article, and if the article is moved, then the category can be nominated for speedy renaming (C2D). But the article talkpage is the place to agree his WP:COMMONNAME. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above, and I'm also not convinced it was the more common form of his name, any more that "John Kennedy" is the more common form of the former US President's name. William Henry Gladstone was also a 19th-century British parliamentarian (at the same time as his father), and the middle name of WEG is almost always used to distinguish the two. Grutness...wha? 02:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a rare time where someone wants a category to have a more ambiguous scope. Based on the suggested rename, the category could cover William Henry Gladstone, Will Gladstone, or Sir William Gladstone, 7th Baronet. The Gladstones being a large political family, and the name William being in frequent use among its members. Dimadick (talk) 09:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The full name is the name of the article. If even the article cannot just use of shorter name, clearly categories cannot.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is consistent with Clarityfiend's move of William Ewart Gladstone to William Gladstone. I reverted the move because I thought it should be discussed first. Opera hat (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- but we should have a category redirect (and perhaps a redirect on then main article). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. --Just N. (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Disasters in fiction[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 17#Category:Disasters in fiction

Category:Fenerbahçe S.K. supporters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. bibliomaniac15 17:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:CATDEFINING: Being a fan of the football club is not a defining characteristic of the article subjects. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, not defining. GiantSnowman 20:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- being a fan of a particular football team is almost never a defining characteristic of someone, and that seems to be the case here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CATDEFINING fail. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, belongs on a fan site. Geschichte (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need for fan categories in Wikipedia! --Just N. (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Arpitany[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Arpitania. bibliomaniac15 17:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename it to Category:Arpitania. That's the name of the main article (Arpitania) and the name of the concept when it was first coined. Arpitania gives 40,000 Google results, Arpitany gives 800. Super Ψ Dro 12:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom To match the name of the main article. Arpitania is the name of a cultural region, and "Arpitany" seems to be an obscure synonym. Dimadick (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American female classical composers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. bibliomaniac15 17:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Related category renamings
Nominator's rationale: Looking for categories I missed in this related CfR (including, e.g., African-American women composers, and closed by bibliomaniac15 after consensus support); rationale is general accuracy (noted by Johnpacklambert) and sex and gender distinction (noted by Marcocapelle). // Side question: the Female musicians category says, "The main article for this category is Women musicians"; is that sort of thing adequate for a "speedy renaming" nom in the future? There are a slew of these to rename, & I'm not sure if I need to do a standard CfR for every one... Knifegames (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and previous cfd. Oculi (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't view it as likely that the category will include females under the age of 12 or 13. Dimadick (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Composers are adults, and women is the accepted term for adult female humans.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Dan Carkner (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The American Library (Yinka Shonibare, 2018) people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 21:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't categorise Performers by role or composition (which is basically what's happening here) and being part of this artwork is not a defining characteristic of its subjects. Graham87 09:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Graham87: It was my solution to creating a list at the article. You know, of 3,200 people. Given the specifics of the artwork, it seems relevant to have that list somewhere, but it would surely be too long at the article. It may not be a typical use of a category, but it's basically functioning as a list article for the artwork, just one that transposes rather than hosting a lot of text. Because of the relevancy to the related article (the list is an important aspect of the exhibition artwork), and being an unconventional use of a category (hopefully lenience is given and "we don't do this" can be overlooked), I would !vote keep, but would like to hear alternatives for presenting the list. My first thought was just to have the web source as an external link at the artwork article, but as the importance is on the people's stories, and we have a whole encyclopedia, it seems fruitless to send people to a list of names somewhere else and not have wikilinks to the people's articles. Kingsif (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Graham87: Your ping didn't work, but I was going back through the category. Regardless of whether using a category to make a list objective will have others making lots of bad categories or not, I have read all the way through copyrighted lists because I was interested in how the Time 100 was a category but there aren't annual lists. Suffice it to say, in my understanding, as long as we're not copying over the creative order of the names as they were displayed, the design of the names on books, or how the people are described at the database (which isn't publicly accessible anymore, as far as I can tell), there's no creative violation; basically, we're not saying "Shonibare wrote a list, here it is", we're saying "these are people featured in this artwork, we listed them all for you" in the same way as if it was a photo of people instead of books with names. There is the on-the-fence-ness at the list essay about subjectivity of "notable", which might have applied here, but the artist's studio has explained that there was no value judgment in selecting the people, with "notability" stemming from having a record in the Cleveland Public Library system. So I'll get back to listifying. Kingsif (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

People acquitted of crimes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. I believe that the reason this discussion was so disjointed is because the nomination is too broad, and needs to be broken down into smaller parts. Because it was too broad, it was hard to find agreement in the discussion, and the arguments presented were inconsistent in application. It would be hard to assert, for instance, that BLP would be applicable to those acquitted under the Espionage Act of 1917. On the other hand, the argument that a major aspect of navigation would be lost due to being defining would only hold water if there were no other similar categories referencing the aspect of people undergoing trial (and this is where BLP/BLPCRIME would receive greater consideration). I would recommend that this nomination be redone in a way that breaks the tree down into more digestible pieces. bibliomaniac15 18:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, these categories are in contrast to the very purpose of acquittal, they associate people with crimes they have not been convicted of. This is a follow-up on this earlier discussion, @WilliamJE, Grutness, Johnpacklambert, and RevelationDirect: pinging contributors to that discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I anticipated a carve out might be needed for the international courts too, although I was more focused on the Nazi ones. But clicking through quite a few articles, most focused on what their role was in the war itself (that got them indicted and later acquitted) rather than the later legal process, but there are exceptions and the articles are all over the map as far as quality. Many of the Nuremberg biographies use what are effectively mugshots for the infobox picture like with Wilhelm Rudolf Mann and Fritz Gajewski though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most/Keep Witchcraft My reading of WP:BLP (specifically WP:SUSPECT, WP:BLPCAT & WP:BLPCRIMINAL) is that these categories are not permissible for living people. Conversely though, we're under no obligation to WP:RGW with historical categories so I focused on those: To my surprise, the Nuremberg articles usually focus on the wartime activities and only mention the later trials in passing or, when mentioned in the ledes it's due to overly long intros. While there are exceptions, like 1 and 2, these articles are already well grouped in other Nazi/German categories. The witchcraft subcat is unique in that the categories contains only deceased people, most of those articles mention the trials in the ledes (9 of 16), and they are often known for little else. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all We should not be categorizing people by crimes they are aquitted of. This has major BLP violation issues, and grouping people by what they are not just does not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The people in Category:People convicted of witchcraft aren't any guiltier than those who have been acquitted. Do with that whatever you want. Just saying this and leaving, don't ping me back here. I don't do categories anymore because it's an area where not enough people care about the rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The same could be said of many people charged with treason or sex crimes. Guilt is dependent on context. Rathfelder (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed a very pertinent observation, colleague Rathfelder. In a lot of cases "guilt is dependent on context", especially in POV-dependent fields like treason or sex crimes. You've got 'sharp eyes', metaphorically speaking. --Just N. (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being guilty of using violence to force someone else to have sex with one is hardly POV-dependent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt all per discussion above.--User:Namiba 14:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) I am changing my vote regarding Category:People acquitted of witchcraft to neutral, after the above discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most/Keep Witchcraft --Just N. (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All. There are many people who are indelibly associated with crimes of which they were not convicted (e.g. Lizzie Borden or O. J. Simpson). There are also many people who were acquitted of crimes of which they were guilty because of an unfair justice system due to racism or other reasons (e.g. Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam). Similarly, there are people who were convicted of crimes of which they were innocent for similar reasons (e.g. Lena Baker); should we delete all the "convicted of" categories as well? Deletion would be burying our heads in the sand about history due to a misguided sense of "fairness". Anyone curious about the probable guilt or innocence of the people in these categories can read their articles to find out what happened. Gildir (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In individual cases we cannot judge whether the justice system was unfair. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All Many of these people are solely notable because of their alleged crimes and sensational trials. These are defining traits for them. I also agree with Gildir's argument that Wikipedia would be ignoring history if it deleted these categories. Dimadick (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we get over the objections by renaming them "People accused of ...."? People who were convicted can then be in subcategories. Rathfelder (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because categorizing people by people accused of a crime is a horrible plan. If they were not convicted it does not rise to a level of being truly defining, and the few exceptions like OJ SImpson are in enough other categories. Sometimes charges are petty obviously politically motivated or done in bad faith, and we do not want to categoize by such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the BLP issues are concerning.--User:Namiba 13:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the other keep rationales above, many people are notable for and are defined by such categories.LM2000 (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most. I have doubts of the merit of categories for relatively minor crimes such as assault; even robbery. Acquittal can arise from the prosecution failing to prove the charge (so that odium may linger) or from proof of innocence (e.g. mistaken identity or no criminal act). Undergoing a major trial is an ordeal in itself, which is likely to be defining. We should certainly keep the international courts; treason; witchcraft. Rape is problematic, as it is usually a question of his word against hers, so that a lot of cases are liable to fall into the unproven category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - I just looked over these. These are flat out WP:OR, among many other problems (including WP:BLPCRIME). For one thing, they presume that all laws (and therefore violations of those laws) are the same everywhere, and in every time period. This is quite obviously not true. We also cannot carve out exceptions to keep certain ones just because something which may have been illegal at some time or place is now considered legal. This is good example of something which really needs WP:TNT. Weak Keep subcats specifically naming the very specific acquitting body/court/tribunal, since these are specific to a particular body of law. (That said, I would prefer Listifying for these subcats.) - jc37 13:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Criticism of political correctness[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. bibliomaniac15 17:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Either delete or needs a serious purge. Most of the articles listed here are individuals who have criticized "political correctness", but that fails WP:OPINIONCAT. I don't think it makes sense to put books or serials in this category either, but that may not fall under OPINIONCAT. (t · c) buidhe 10:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: a potential purge of this category (i.e. of people) is the subject of a recently opened and ongoing Request for Comment here. In case of a premature purge, which might affect the outcome of either discussion, below is a list of category contents as of the time of writing. Also note previous CfD regarding Category:Critics of political correctness (outcome: delete), and Category:Political correctness (outcome: do not simply delete). --Animalparty! (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category contents as of 17:34, 19 July 2021
  • Delete or purge per nom. I can see four articles that would objectively belong in this category, among which Campaign Against Political Correctness. But in order to prevent repopulation of this category after purging, it is probably better to delete the category altogether and to interlink the four articles directly, e.g. in a See also section. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, delete as inherently non-neutral unless someone can think of a neutral name. We wouldn't have "Category:Opposition to white genocide" or "Category:Defenders of free speech". The framing of the topic as "political correctness" is heavily loaded. I don't agree that such a thing as "political correctness" exists as a single coherent category. — Bilorv (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bilorv, like him I don't think that "such a thing as "political correctness" exists as a single coherent category. Unless a more coherent redefine can be arrived at, this category's only value is to show how randomly the term 'PC' has been used. We are all critics since what is generally called PC is simply (at best) a particular kind of well intentioned ineptness, foolishness, or euphemising in language or public policy, and we are all critics in the same way that we all think bad ideas are not a good thing and immorality is to be avoided! At worst, criticism of PC is a particular kind of malicious distortion in order to negatively characterise the initiative and/or initiator. It's a crude, blunt rhetorical sledgehammer at its worst. What meaningful characteristic lumps Stephen Fry, Donald Trump and Milo Yiannopoulos together? Pincrete (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge Biographies/Neutral on Rest The biography articles should definitely go. I'll defer to wiser editors on whether the category should be kept at all. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak purge: All categories can be abused or overused. The risk here isn't higher than others. It's better purge this category and only use it for organizations that directly oppose/challenge political correctness, per User:Marcocapelle. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge all critics per the other RFC, as these are simply bypassing the decision to delete the category "critics of PC". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; too few articles are clearly in this category to make it a relevant category, especially if we have Category:Political correctness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - the term is pejorative, so there should be almost no difference between the two cats --Aquillion (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 9#Category:Political correctness

  • Update: The related Request for Comment has closed with a consensus that individual people should not be in this category. Thus, some or all of the biographies may possibly be removed from this category shortly. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done just that. It seems most of what we have left in the category now are episodes of South Park (ten of them, to be exact), various talk shows/youtube channels, some weird internet pejoratives like "Social justice warrior" or "Oppression Olympics", and a couple of books and films. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In light of the closed RFC.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I completely agree with the outcome of the RFC, this nomination went quite a bit further than was discussed in the RFC and I would support going quite a bit further (see above). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Political correctness' current meaning is not particularly defining to begin with. It means the propagation of (often silly or redundant) euphemisms to denote otherwise widely known concepts. It is an ideal topic for satire, but has not changed much over the last few decades. And it hardly has serious defenders, only detractors. Dimadick (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While it still may have too large a scope, at least some of the current contents are literary works that mock and criticize political correctness as basically their very reason for being. The people have been removed, and while I can not vouch that all the works belong, there are several here that this is a very defining trait of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on account of the loaded and opinionated framing of the topic as "political correctness", per Bilorv. See also our article Political correctness. Bishonen | tålk 02:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. As Bilorv said, political correctness isn't really a single coherent category. No one agrees on what "political correctness" actually means or includes, so the category just ends up being criticism that includes the term "political correctness". I don't think what is essentially now a repository of South Park episodes and Youtube channels is a particularly useful category that points to any coherent and defining trait about those things. Perhaps topics sufficiently related to the term "political correctness" (from any POV) could still just be placed in Category:Political correctness instead. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bilorv and Dimadicl. --Just N. (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia categories named after Prime Ministers of India (and misc.)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 21:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Conforms to MOS:JOBTITLES. Woko Sapien (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See MOS:JOBTITLES which shows that plurals must be lowercase. --Woko Sapien (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Parents of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom (and misc.)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. – Fayenatic London 21:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Conforms to MOS:JOBTITLES. Woko Sapien (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've since removed the strike-throughs. --Woko Sapien (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Prime Minister" is a title and correctly capitalised thus. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're correct about "Prime Minister", but these categories use "Prime Ministers". The manual of style clearly shows that plurals are almost always in lowercase. --Woko Sapien (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, these are not categories about the title itself (if that were the case it would be capitalized) but about people in an office that allows them to use the title. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all - Acting Prime Minister of the Russian Federation may be an exact title but Acting Prime Ministers of the Russian Federation is certainly not, so it should not be capitalised. --Just N. (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_22&oldid=1046255938"